Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 147

Fri, 23 Jul 2010

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Chana Luntz" <Ch...@Kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:44:43 +0100
Re: [Avodah] [Areivim] kosher cabbage

Sorry, been meaning to get into this discussion but been busy:

> I fail to see the relevance.  What difference does it make whether it's
> tevel de'oraisa or derabbanan?  The fact remains that it's vadai (or
> almost vadai) tevel.

The bit of my post that RYL quoted is not relevant, the relevant sources are
as follows:

 The mishna in Chala (perek 2, mishna 1) has a machlokus [dispute] between
R' Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer which states that "peros chutz l'aretz shenichnas
l'aretz chayavin b'chala yezei m'kan l'sham Rabbi Eliezer mechayav u'Rabbi
Akiva patur" [the fruits of outside of Israel which enter into Israel are
obligated in the taking of chala, those that go out from here [ie Israel] to
there [outside Israel]  Rabbi Eliezer obligates and Rabbi Akiva does not
obligate] and the Kesef Mishna brings that the Yerushalmi gives the reason
of Rabbi Akiva as being because the Torah says "ha'aretz asher ani meyvi
eschem shama" [the land to which I will bring you there] "shama atem chayvin
be'en peros ha'aretz be'en peros chutz l'aretz" "shamaya atem chayavin v'ei
atem chavyin b'chutz l'aretz",[there you are obligated whether the fruits
come from Israel or not from Israel, there you are obligated, but you are
not obligated outside of Israel] and it is clear from everybody that we
posken in such a debate like R' Akiva.

Hence the Rambam in Hilchos Terumos perek 1 halacha 22 states:

"Peros eretz yisroel shyetze hutza l'aretz pturin min hachala, u'min
haterumos u'min hama'asros shenemar asher ani mevi eeschem shama.  V'im
yezei l'suriya chayvin m'divrehem" [the fruit of Eretz Yisroel that goes
outside of Israel are exempt from chala, and from teruma and from masros, as
it says, that which I will bring you there.  And if they go out to Suria
they are obligated rabbinically]

and very similar language is used in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, siman
331, si'if 12, without any dissent from the Rema.

The Shach there si'if katan 20 states that this is "afilu m'peros shel eretz
yisroel d'i m'peros shel chutz l'aretz pshita d'ha chova karka he". [even
from fruit of eretz yisroel because in regard to fruit of outside Israel it
is obvious that this is an obligation of the earth]

So far it would seem, so clear.

BUT, it turns out there is a Mishna L'Melech, on this Rambam (ie hilchos
terumos perek 1 halacha 22) which states that the mishna in chala and the
Rambam are only talking about a case where the produce is exported before it
reached the status of being chayav [obligated] in terumos and ma'asros
(hamachlokus zeh haya davka kshehitchayev b'chutz l'aretz").  But that if
exported afterwards it indeed does have the status of tevel, and is chayav
in trumos and ma'asros.

And Rav Moshe (Iggeros Moshe Yoreh Deah chelek 3 siman 127) after bringing
the mishna in chala, the Shulchan Aruch and the Rambam on peros in chutz
l'aretz concludes "l'dina harei kol ha'achronim sovrim k'chiddush ha Mishna
L'Melech she'byezei l'chutz l'aretz achar m'revach v'chen kol pri acher
shenitchayav b'trumos u'masros chayavin b'chutz l'aretz v'cha issur tevel"
[the law is that all the achronim hold like the chiddush of the Mishna
L'melech that if they go out to chutz l'aretz after the status of revach and
so for all other fruit that enter into trumos and ma'asros they are
obligated in chutz l'aretz and have the issur of tevel]

Unfortunately however, Rav Moshe does not say who "kol ha'achronim" are.

The only person on the page of the Shulchan Aruch who appears to even bring
the position of the Mishna L'melech is the Tzvi L'tzadok (although he does
not quote him explicitly). As mentioned the Shach does not bring this
position (and surely if he held by it he would have brought it in the si'if
katan referred to above), nor can I see it in the Gra (who does not appear
to comment on this portion of the si'if at all).  

The Sde Chemed in his index headings under Teruma only discusses "tevel
b'eretz yisroel b'zman hazeh u'bchutz l'aretz b'zman habayis" [tevel in
Eretz Yisroel today and in chutz l'aretz in the time of the beis hamikdash]-
which is interesting because the implication is that there is nothing to
discuss in chutz l'aretz b'zman hazeh [today], although I may be reading too
much into it.  I could not find anything in Mishpat Cohen on topic, or in
Minchas Shlomo (he does not appear to refer to this si'if of the Shulchan
Aruch).  And again I could find nothing in Yachave Daat or Yabiat Omer (I
was hoping the latter would give me an insight into whether or not "kol
haachronim" included Sephardi achronim - and in any event, the usual
exhaustive citations that are ROY's trademark).  

Certainly if you read the Kesef Mishna on the Rambam there in hilchos
ma'asros perek 1, (which for some reason in my edition is labelled as si'if
katan 23, even though it is clearly on halacha 22), at least by implication
he seems to reject the chiddush of the Mishna L'melech (he discusses the
position of the Ra'avad, there who clearly argues on the Rambam and is not
that different in this regard) which leads me to speculate that Sephardi
achronim might not be so tempted to follow the Mishna L'Melech - especially
if they take a ROY like, "we always follow Maran" approach.

And a local Sephardi rav told me that it was the accepted position in the
Sephardi world (I don't know if this means universal, or just where he came
from) to say that produce from Eretz Yisroel was not obligated in trumos and
ma'sros once it was chutz l'aretz (I imagine this was a halacha l'ma'ase
question for far more Sephardim than it was for Ashkenazim - given that
exporting produce as far as Ashkenaz in days gone by was probably pretty
rare, while to the lands inhabited by Sephardim was probably reasonable
common).  Unfortunately I do not have anything in writing though, it is just
the word of somebody I know.

Have people traditionally been doing some poskening on the basis of safek
d'rabbanan l'kula and sfeik sfeikos where the situation is unclear (eg maybe
the produce was exported before it was chayav in trumos u'masros and maybe
the Rabbanut took (although that you should be able to establish) and maybe
the halacha is not like the Mishna L'melech and maybe if terumos and
ma'asros in eretz yisroel are only d'rabbanan [another aspect that seems to
be the subject of a machlokus and which I can dwell on if there is interest]
then the rabbis were not metaken such on produce exported to chutz l'aretz
into the hands of a non Jew)?

When I asked this question on Mail Jewish (some time after I asked it on
Avodah as per the post that RYL referred to, so this is the more updated
version - ie with the reference to a local Sephardi Rav), R' Saul Mashbaum
replied to me as follows:

>For a basic discussion of this subject, I recommend Derech Emunah by R.
Chaim Kanyevsky, Trumot 1,22. He cites the Bach at the end of Tur YD 321,
who >disagrees with the M'lM. The Minchat Chinuch mitzva 284 also explicitly
disagrees, ayni sham. OTHO, he quotes the Radva"z, the Mabit, and the Aruch
>HaShulchan as acccepting the M"lM. (the AHS is in AHS l'Atid, I think siman
57). DE also says that the Chazon Ish accepts the Mishna l'Melech see
>Shviit 2:1 and Dmai 5:3-4.
>An excellent resource on this subject is R. Isser Zalman Meltzer in Kerem
Zion volume 13, who notes as you do that the pashtut of the SA and its nosei
>keilim, including the Gra, is that we do not accept the chidush of the
Mishna l"Melech. L'maase, he says, as you indicate, the we have a sfeika
d'dina, >multiple sfeikot b'mtziut (was truma taken? Was the fruit grown by
a non-Jew?)  and several  d'rabbanan's (trumat peirot hailan b'zman hazeh),
and thus >someone in chu"l can be meikil not to take truma from oranges from

> Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Prof. Levine" <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:18:14 -0400
[Avodah] Worms in Fish - the Recent Tumult by Rabbi Moishe

Please see http://www.kashrut.com/articles//WormsInFish/

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:03:02 -0400
Re: [Avodah] The shape of the Menorah of the Temple

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:50:45PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Indeed the Maaseh Choshev is almost the first sefer to claim that the
> arms were round; but he explicitly says that his basis is the fact
> that the Rambam says "nimshachim ve'olim" and doesn't say "ba'alachson".

But we both know his basis is the fact that every record of the menorah
(certainly in his day, and I would argue today as well) as it existed
shows curved arms.

He was searching for a way to assume that as many rishonim as possible
weren't wrong (as determined by non-mesoretic evidence).

In that sense, it's akin to our discussion on Areivim about chaleiv
yisrael WRT cheeses and butter. As you noted, the gemara says "chaleiv
temeiah eino maamid." Lemaaseh, though, it does. And if the Babylonian
locals used much camel milk, Chazal would know that well.

However, we can reach the same conclusion WRT requiring CY for cheese
if you take the gemara to mean "eino maamid [the way chaleiv tehorah
would]". That's enough to eliminate the risk of cheese made from milk
adulterated with milk from a temei'ah. And does fit the facts.

In both cases:
If the translation that fits the facts on the ground is plausible,
even it less straightforward, I would gravitate toward it.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Chanoch (Ken) Bloom" <kbl...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:49:07 -0500
Re: [Avodah] Al Haaretz v'Al Peiroteha

On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 02:29 +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> In the thread "kosher cabbage", R' Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> > ... the psak I saw (in the shulchan aruch not the KSA) stated
> > that for fruits grown in EY, when saying Al HaEtz afterwards
> > you should say "Al Haaretz v'Al Peiroteha" regardless of where
> > they are being eaten.
> R' Zev Sero responded:
> > And when drinking Israeli wine. ... But not when eating Israeli
> > baked goods, because most wheat in Israel is imported.
> In other words, for Israeli wine, the bracha ends "v'al p'ri gafnah",
> but the bracha for baked goods does *not* end "v'al michyasah".
> Now let's look it up...
> In Orach Chayim, the Mechaber 208:10 says to say "peiroseha" after
> Israeli fruit. Magen Avraham 16, Beer Hetev 14, Mishneh Berurah 51-54,
> and Aruch Hashulchan 6 all give various comments on this, but *none*
> of them extend this to wine or to baked goods.
> Why is this? One possibility is that they were distracted by a different
> question, that of how the standard bracha after wine should end. (See
> all the nosei keilim on both 208:10 and 208:11 for more on that.) But
> regardless, why didn't they mention baked goods?
> Baked goods are indeed mentioned in Kaf Hachayim 208:58, where he says
> that the minhag is to use all three of these: "... and in Al Hamichya,
> the minhag is ["nohagin"] to end with Baruch Atah Hashem Al Haaretz V'al
> Michyatah... and so ["v'chayn"] in the bracha on fruit the minhag is
> ["nohagin"] to say V'nodeh L'cha Al Haaretz V'al Peirotehah. And in the
> bracha on wine V'nodeh L'cha Al Haaretz V'al Pri Gafnah..."
> So who are we following? The several poskim who mention only fruit,
> or the one who says all three? I understand that it is true today that
> "most wheat in Israel is imported", but I doubt whether it was so 100
> or 200 or 500 years ago. I suspect that we all follow the Kaf Hachayim,
> except that today we lack the *opporetunity* to make all three changes.

ArtScroll siddurim in Chutz l'Aretz appear to be following the several
poskim who mention only fruit. On the other hand, Sephardi siddurim
printed today follow the Kaf HaHayyim and mention all three endings
(even though, as you say, most wheat in EY is imported). I'm not sure
who RZS follows on this, but I suspect that the prevailing Ashkenazi
minhag in the USA is like ArtScroll. (I admit that I'm not entirely
familiar with the prevailing Ashkenazi minhag around here, as I follow
the Sephardi minhag.)

> (And, I suppose, "Al Haaretz V'al Mezonosehah"
> in Birkas Hamazon after Israeli bread.)

Haven't seen this in any Sephardi siddur ever.


Go to top.

Message: 5
From: "Tal Moshe Zwecker" <tal.zwec...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 03:56:37 +0300
[Avodah] minhagei 9 av

We dont eat meat or drink wine for the taava to do so, we do so to lessen 
the depression and sadness brought one by excessive aveilus

It's the same reason we (I mean many Chassidim) have the minhag to always 
recite shir hamaalos before bentching and al naharos bavel only on 9 of av

The Mishna says 'mishenichnas Av mema'atin b'simcha' (as the month of Av 
approaches, we reduce our level of simcha) The simple reading of these words 
is "When Av enters we decrease in joy." However, as you know the Talmudic 
text contains no punctuation marks, and so this statement can be read in two 

On the one hand, yes, practically speaking, because of the tragedies that 
befell the Jewish people during the month of Av, we minimize our joy. That 
is why we fast on 17th Tammuz and 9th of Av etc.

However, we can also read it another way: "When Av enters we decrease, 
through joy." How do we diminish the pain and suffering which comes when Av 
enters? Specifically through the simchah, through a positive outlook and a 
joyous approach. That is why we have the minhag to make siyums during this 

You may disagree with the Chassidic approach but remember the leaders of 
Chassidus were giants in Torah learning of Niglah as well and any argument 
you can muster they surely thought of as well.

Kol Tuv,
R' Tal Moshe Zwecker
Director Machon Be'er Mayim Chaim
Chassidic Classics in the English Language
Phone: 972-2-992-1218 / Cell: 972-54-842-4725
VoIP: 516-320-6022 / eFax: 1-832-213-3135
join the mailing list here: http://groups.google.com/group/beermayimchaim
Noam Elimelech, Kedushas Levi, Pirkei Avos more!
Discuss Chassidus http://groups.google.com/group/torahchassidusdiscussion
Author Page https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B003VH9D48
LinkedIn: http://il.linkedin.com/in/rabbitalmoshe 

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:23:51 -0400
Re: [Avodah] The shape of the Menorah of the Temple

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:50:45PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Indeed the Maaseh Choshev is almost the first sefer to claim that the
>> arms were round; but he explicitly says that his basis is the fact
>> that the Rambam says "nimshachim ve'olim" and doesn't say "ba'alachson".
> But we both know his basis is the fact that every record of the menorah
> (certainly in his day, and I would argue today as well) as it existed
> shows curved arms.

We certainly don't both know this.  Where did you get the idea?
He says his basis is the Rambam; why doubt him?  He doesn't mention
having seen any ancient pictures, so why do you assume he did?

> He was searching for a way to assume that as many rishonim as possible
> weren't wrong (as determined by non-mesoretic evidence).

How do you know this?

Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:18:04 +0300
[Avodah] The shape of the Menorah of the Temple

Sperber has am extended discussion in vol 5 of minhagei yisrael

Sifii Zuta  uses the word "atarah" to describe the menorah.
Ha-Zet Raanaan (from the Magen Avrahram) brings two interpretations
either that the menorah was round surround the center arm and not in a
straight line
but says this is against the gemara and gives a second intreptation
that the arms were round
but says that was "dochak"

He bring pictures of Chashmanoim coins that clearly show curved arms (37 BCE)
Of course the famous picture in the arch of Titus shows curved arms.
Similarly excavations in the Jewish quarter and on Kever Yason all
show a menorah
with curved arms Later in the 3rd and 4th century (CE) pictures from
bet shearim,
a glass plate from Rome of the same era
all show curved arms as well as the shul in Priene from Byzantine times.
one picture from dura in 245 show a more stra?ight arm with slight curves
while a second picture from Dura clearly shows curved arms.
Hence, virtually all ancient pictures show curved arms

Most of the article of Sperber deals with the base where most pictures show
a triangular base with the arch of Titus differing.?

Eli Turkel

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Daniel Israel <d...@cornell.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:35:36 -0600
Re: [Avodah] [Areivim] Veils and Terrorists

On Jul 21, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Steven J Scher wrote:
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenc
> h_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools
> "The French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in  
> schools bans wearing conspicuous religious symbols in French public  
> (i.e. government-operated) primary and secondary schools. The law is  
> an amendment to the French Code of Education that expands principles  
> founded in existing French law, especially the constitutional  
> requirement of lait the separation of state and religious  
> activities. ...
> "Prohibited items would include headscarves  for Muslim girls,  
> yarmulkes for Jewish boys, and turbans  for Sikh  boys."

I'm curious, has anyone heard a psak whether to consider this a  
yaharog v'lo ya'avor?  AIUI, the halacha is that any demand to violate  
even a minhag falls in this category, but only if it is done as an  
attack on Torah, not if it is done for other reasons.  Here the law is  
not aimed at Judaism specifically, but it is aimed at religion.  So  
which side does it fall on.

Of course the other part of this is that it is not actually a life and  
death issue.  Given that the whole sugya, IIRC, comes out of chai  
bahem, is there any heter to violate a ya'avor v'lo yaharog if it  
doesn't save a life, but rather only avoids a fine or jail sentence?

Daniel M. Israel

Go to top.

Message: 9
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:12:40 EDT
Re: [Avodah] Kelayim - Holy or Evil?


From: "M Cohen" _mcohen@touchlogic.com_ (mailto:mco...@touchlogic.com) 

>>   Kelayim in the bigdai kahuna

similar to an avaira lishmah?   <<

An aveira lishma is an aveira.  It may be something you do for a good  
reason (or for what you think is a good reason) -- but it's still an  aveira.  
it is something that is against the halacha even though you think  there is 
good justification.  The only example I can think of right now  would be 
driving on Shabbos in order to go to shul, but there are better  examples.
In contrast, if something is a mitzva, then it is not an aveira -- by  
definition.  If Hashem Himself commanded it, then it is not an  aveirah.  In the 
BHM'K a lot of things were done -- because the Torah  decreed that they 
must be done -- that would be an aveirah in other  circumstances but were a 
mitzva in the BHM'K.  The most obvious example is  shechting and cooking meat 
on Shabbos.
The bigdei kehunah contained shatnez because the Torah commanded that they  
be made of certain materials.  The same Torah also said that  personal 
clothing may NOT contain shatnez.  Obviously if Hashem  Himself commanded that 
the bigdei kehunah be made of wool and linen then it was  a mitzva to make 
them that way -- not an "aveira lishma"!  Not any kind of  aveirah!
How could Hashem forbid something in one place that He mandates  in 
another?  Well, getting back to the subject line of this thread -- "holy  or evil?" 
-- I don't think you could possibly call shatnez "evil" since the K'G  wore 
shatnez, but you could possibly say that it is an evil /act/ to  
misappropriate something holy and use it for your own purposes or use it in a  manner 
that the Torah forbids.

--Toby Katz


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 10
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:50:55 EDT
Re: [Avodah] anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism"


From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:mi...@aishdas.org) 
Old TK:  : I enter  into evidence the following two exhibits:
: a.  Bilaam's  donkey

RMB:     Which was  created separately from every other animal.

TK:   It was different from every other animal in its  ability to speak and 
express its thoughts in words, but its feelings and  "thoughts" were those 
of any other even slightly intelligent animal.  Even  a dog would have 
something of the same "thought" -- or rather, emotion of  surprise -- if an owner 
to whom it had always been loyal, and who had always  treated it well, 
suddenly started kicking and beating the dog one  day.

Old TK:  : b. The calf who ran away because it didn't want to  be 

RMB:  Still, where do you see that the calf was aware of its own  thoughts 
this story?
TK:  Who said anything about the animal being aware of its own  thoughts?  
I specifically denied that "self-awareness" was necessary in  order to 
experience suffering.  The animal somehow knew it was going to be  shechted and 
it didn't want to die (or it didn't want to experience pain).   Animals 
experience both pain and fear and those experiences constitute  suffering.  I 
just don't know where "being aware of its own thoughts" comes  into it at all.  
I don't even know where "being aware of one's own  thoughts" comes in for 
human suffering.  When I was in labor I was  definitely suffering but I never 
had any thought like, "Well here I am, thinking  about how awful this is 
and how I can't wait for it to be over."

Old TK:  :                But it is   indisputable 
: that they suffer physical pain, and the notion that they  don't  suffer 
: because there is no "I" there is just wrong.   

RMB:  Then what do you do with my objections:

1- If the  inputs to animal thought include the watching of the thoughts
themselves,  wouldn't that mean they have free will? And isn't free will
the tzelem  E-lokim (see the Meshekh Chokhmah).
TK:  I emphatically deny that the "inputs to animal thought" include  "the 
watching of the thoughts themselves."  I don't even know what that  means.  
Even humans often "think" in simple pictures or in emotions without  words, 
and when they do think in words, how often are they aware that they are  
thinking?  People who are deaf from birth think in pictures.  So do  pre-verbal 
babies, and so do animals.

RMB:  ....Thus, to say an  animal has an "I" that is aware of the pain 
raises problems
in how one  explains Bereishis 1:26-27, and 2:7.
TK:  Once again, I deny that an animal has a conscious "I" and I also  deny 
that it is necessary to have an "I" in order to suffer.  I think  Skinner 
was not only wrong, but a moron.  Look at a baby crying in  pain:  the baby 
is clearly suffering even if too young to think or to have  any 
self-awareness.  Now look at a baby crying because his mother has left  and he doesn't 
know the baby sitter and he is suffering from  stranger-anxiety.  Look at the 
same baby calming down when his mother  returns.  When he cried in frantic 
distress because his mother left him, he  was suffering even though he did 
not have an "I" and was not "aware" of the pain  in the rather abstract sense 
you seem to be thinking of.  And his distress  was caused not by physical 
pain but by an inchoate thought/feeling:  "The  most important person in the 
world is gone, and has left me alone here with this  stranger."

RMB:  2- The part of the brain which, when damaged,  prevents this ability 
people is a set of advanced cortical areas in the  prefrontal cortex,
perhaps in concert with the temporal lobes, others suggest  with
interaction with the centromedial thelamus....
TK:  I absolutely and totally do not know what you're talking  about.  It 
is possible to suffer such severe brain damage that one is no  longer 
conscious and therefore does not suffer.  It is also possible to  suffer brain 
damage that leaves a person incapable of thought or speech but  still capable of 
feeling pain and hence, of suffering.

RMB:  The US National Academy of the Sciences Institute for Animal  
Research did studies in 2009 (ILAR 2009). They didn't find any  evidence
for self-awareness (in this sense of the phrase; I don't mean a dog  that
treats its own reflection differently than that of other dogs).
TK:  There you go again, beating a dead horse -- or a horse that lacks  
awareness of its non-aliveness.

RMB:  So the notion of self-aware  animals would pose both hashkafic and
scientific questions. .... 
TK:  I have no notion of self-aware animals.  I only posited a  non-self 
aware animal nevertheless knowing that it is in pain.  And BTW  many centuries 
ago in Avodah-time, I raised a theological question which I find  more 
disturbing than the question of why G-d created a world in which human  beings 
suffer, and that is, why did He create a world in which animals  suffer?  
What moral, or other, benefit could there be to such suffering,  especially 
when it takes place away from anywhere that humans could either  alleviate the 
suffering or even be aware of it so as to experience pity,  compassion and 
so on?  You have handily done away with my theological  questions by simply 
waving away any possibility that animals can suffer, since  they can't define 
the word "epistemology."
RMB:  If you can think of an alternative to meta-cognizance  (awareness of 
awareness) other than radical behaviorism, I'll consider  the merits of
that possibility. I couldn't think of one.
TK:  I'm still trying to wrap my head around the question of why you  think 
the only choices are to be a German philosopher or to be Pavlov's  dog.
But personally I have not experienced meta-cognizance more than two or  
three times in my whole life.

--Toby Katz


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 11
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:21:23 EDT
Re: [Avodah] post chatzot learning

From: Saul.Z.New...@kp.org

>> i wonder about what  heterim there are to liberalize tora learning of a 
non-mourning  variety  post  chatzot on 9 av  <<

It seems to me that this would be of a piece with sitting in a normal chair 
 after chatzos, putting on tefillin in the afternoon, and the custom 
mentioned in  Sefer Hatoda'ah of cleaning the house and sweeping the floor on 
Tisha B'Av  afternoon in anticipation of the Ge'ulah -- "since it is a tradition 
that  Moshiach will be born on Tisha B'Av."
--Toby Katz


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:55:35 +0300
[Avodah] ee itmar hachi itmar

<<That's my understanding. That they didn't take it for granted that
maamarim reached Bavel intact, and if something didn't make sense,
it was considered indication that perhaps it was repeated incorrectly.>>

The 2 cases on shabbat 44 are a statement from Zeiri and then a statement from
R. Yehuda in the name of Rav, both Babylonian amoraim.

shortly afterwards on 45a the gemara quotes a statement from R Cahana
and R. Ashi
to Rav - and I didnt see any comments on the the order of the generations

Eli Turkel

Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Simon Montagu <simon.mont...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 03:02:00 -0700
Re: [Avodah] anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism"

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:50 PM, <T6...@aol.com> wrote:

> From: Micha Berger mi...@aishdas.org
> Old TK:  : I enter into evidence the following two exhibits:
> : a.  Bilaam's donkey
> RMB:     Which was created separately from every other animal.
> TK:   It was different from every other animal in its ability to speak and
> express its thoughts in words, but its feelings and "thoughts" were those of
> any other even slightly intelligent animal.  Even a dog would have something
> of the same "thought" -- or rather, emotion of surprise -- if an owner to
> whom it had always been loyal, and who had always treated it well, suddenly
> started kicking and beating the dog one day.

Yesh mishna mesaya`t lach: It is explicitly "pi ha'aton" which was created
specially, not the donkey herself.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai


Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 147

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

< Previous Next >